Can we trust animal testing?

The National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) currently ranks adverse drug reactions as the fourth leading cause of death. If this is the case, why does research and drug testing on animals still continue? The animal testing debate has split our society in half: animal activists and those eager to find cures. The editorial “Mouse Megascience,” discusses the need to promote and defend animal research continuation, specifically mice research. Those against animal research commonly signify the practice as a “necessary evil” (“Mouse Megascience”). The National Anti-Vivisection Society states that those who oppose animal research believe that the main problems encountered include animal pain and suffering, the medical field’s false progress, and animal and human differences.

The editorial, “Mouse Megascience” claims that mice “have become an important biomedical model”. The progression of mice research will soon create every gene modification possible, as well as the possibility to phenotype mice characteristics. The International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium (IMPC), the biggest group favoring mice research and phenotyping, says that “just” $900 million will allow scientists to phenotype 4,000 mutants in a five-year span. With such a high cost, the IMPC asks others for funding to complete their plan; spreading their opinions to a more varied audience would generate the best increase in funding. The IMPC argues that even though phenotyping costs are outrageously high, better technology will decrease costs. But how long can we wait for this new technology to be created before we have spent too much money on mice research?

When performing medical tests on animals, most animals exhibit pain and suffering disregarded by the scientist, a moral wrongdoing (NAVS). To us, animals seem to exist solely for us to use as we see fit. By removing them from their natural habitats we inflict physical and physiological pain (not to mention family isolation, depression, and the anxiety that can all form once their homes are removed). As humans we do not realize the pain we perpetrate because we have the freedom to make our own choices with the knowledge we acquired and language, but animals lack this trait and therefore cannot refuse or oppose treatments imposed. Even though animals cannot communicate with humans, they should be considered fellow living creatures that share our environment, not a medical resource. Take a moment and imagine switching positions; how would you feel to be under a constant scope of experiments, injected with various drugs, and possibly facing death?

Misleading advertised “cures” stand to be the second opposition to animal testing. How many times have you seen news broadcasting a new drug created that has “cured” a disease, only to find out that it’s success was observed in animals, not humans? It appears that humans use animals to determine if drugs are safe and efficacious. But as stated earlier, drug reactions are the fourth leading cause of death worldwide. This statistic should be very surprising since scientists and doctors tell us the drugs we take are supposed to make us better, not have the opposite effect. To further convince you the false drug advertisement, researchers have also found drugs to be 30-60% effective. With such alarming statistics, why do we use animals to create drugs that have such high chances to kill us and/or create an adverse reaction? And can we really trust the drugs being prescribed to us?

Differences between animals and humans serve as the third and final opposition to animal medical tests. Although animals and people have many similar characteristics and organs, animal’s genotype (genetic makeup which determines how and when animals react to medication) differs greatly. This difference can create many unusual reactions and responses. In early research, scientists tried to determine the basic body structures and the body’s internal composition, but now, research has turned to drug testing to produce cures. Many scientists know that the differences between animals and humans can cause complications when given the same drug, but scientists still chose to continue using animal research to create effective drugs. For example, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) tested 12 anti-cancer drugs that researchers found to be helpful in cancer revolving problems. While these drugs were effective in animals, this same drug proved to be only 37% effect in humans; a 63% failure. How do we trust the drugs being given to us even when they say that animal testing has proven the substance to be safe, when in reality the drugs attest to be ineffective?

To reduce animal testing we must create different ways to test substances (such as drugs) that does not involve animals. Many times we forget that crucial medicinal advances have come from human research and observation. Dr. Ray Greek, President of Americans for Medical Advancement (NAVS) states that animal testing has lost its suitability for research because we have surpassed the adequate human modeling through animals. Therefore, mice and other animal testing should not be used to advance. But future are said to potentially reduce animal testing and find alternatives to testing drugs. Finally, after surveying a group I found that many would not prefer to be lying on a table while inspected/tested and that as long as animal testing continues we cannot trust the drugs prescribed because of uncertainty in drug reactions. Unfortunately, alternatives to animal testing have not been discovered and the discovery of them is long overdue. But $900 million the IMPC wants could instead be used to search for more reliable and effective alternatives to animal testing.


Works Cited:
“Mice Megascience.” 02 June 2010: 465-7298. Nature: International weekly journal of science. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.